354 Department of Conservation of Louisiana 



tion the greatest promise of any trap we have yet experi- 

 mented with. The inventor has not placed it on the market 

 in quantities as this is being written, but it would appear 

 if this trap is developed and extensively used, that the 

 problem of how not to catch the mice and kits, but take only 

 the big ones, has been solved. Mr. Gibbs describes his dif- 

 ferent traps as follows : 



The Gibbs "two -trigger" trap was produced for the purpose of 

 stopping the loss by "wringing off" of such animals as mink, muskrat, 

 etc., which has always been common in the type of traps commonly 

 known as steel traps. "Wringing off" is an expression used by trappers 

 in connection with having reference to the amputation of a leg or part 

 of an animal gripped in the jaws of a steel trap. Various trappers 

 have different ideas as to the .manner in which an animal accomplishes 

 this result. Some think the animals themselves chew their legs off, 

 while others believe that in struggling in the trap the animal breaks 

 the leg bone and finally severs the skin and ligaments, freeing itself 

 from the trap. Personally, in the case of muskrats, I am positive that 

 this latter is true. Muskrats do not bite themselves under any circum- 

 stances or conditions intentionally. They do, however, sometimes cut 

 themselves in striking at a trap that is holding them. 



[I differ with Mr. Gibbs in his positive statement that muskrats do 

 not bite themselves free of a trap after the leg is broken. — S. C. A.] 



"This loss from 'wringing offs' varies in different localities and under 

 different situations. I found, myself, that in my own marsh it amounted 

 to 28% animals in a hundred, and I believe that in Louisiana it must 

 have amounted close to if, not, 50%, and I have been told by various 

 trappers there that it did. 



"In addition to saving for the trappers and fur industry the animals 

 that have previously escaped as above, the 'two-trigger' trap kills most 

 of these animals caught in it quickly, and is, therefore, in a measure 

 humane. It also holds the animals so that they do not cut down the 

 grass and vegetation in the vicinity where the trap is set, and this, 

 coupled with the fact that the animals are quickly killed, makes 

 it more difficult for birds of prey to see them, and, consequently, saves 

 a great deal of damage to pelts from such birds. The surroundings of 

 the place where the trap is set not having been disturbed, the trapper 

 can reset the trap in the same place, making it easier for him to 

 conduct his operations." [Mr. Gibbs and I differ here, too. Our in- 

 vestigations have proved that birds damaging the muskrat pelts only 

 attack dead animals — never the live ones. — S. C. A.] 



"There is a wide difference of opinion expressed as to the number 

 of muskrats that recover after having escaped from a trap through 

 the amputation of a leg, but I do not believe that any one who has 

 really paid close attention to the condition of the animals after they 

 do escape, and to the number of animals taken in a succeeding season 

 that have recovered, against those that escaped in the preceding season, 

 would hesitate in the least to state positively that the number is ex- 

 ceedingly small. In my marsh, where I have trapped the same terri- 

 tory year alter year and kept records, in one season before I had per- 

 fected the 'two-trigger' trap I had 272 wring offs. The next season I 

 caught five animals that had wrung off in the preceding or previous 

 seasons and had recovered. Personally, I do not believe that more 



